Games

Platform

Sort By

Length Range Category

Hour Range

Sort By

Show Extra Information

Other Options

To those who don't rate games , why do you commit such a crime ^_^ Your rating can make or break the heart of guys like me . So start rating games or atleast give your reasons as to why you don't rate ?

I stopped rating games cause it's useless. Who even cares about my rating? I myself don't care. I can say few opinions about some specific game, but adding random number has no purpose. People are way too obsessed about ratings nowadays. All these metascores, review scores and other crap. Tired of it.

Whether you express your opinion in detail or sum it up in a number, you rate it, how else would you discuss games without your input? On a side note, never let a review influent your decision, always form your own opinion. There is nothing wrong with disliking critically acclaimed games, don't be a bandwagoner.

I stopped rating games cause it's useless. Who even cares about my rating? I myself don't care. I can say few opinions about some specific game, but adding random number has no purpose. People are way too obsessed about ratings nowadays. All these metascores, review scores and other crap. Tired of it.

I don't think many people look at scores as a defined rating system. Just because one game got an 85 and another got an 87 does not make the latter a better game necessarily. It's just nice to see a level of enjoyment that people got out of it, and most of the time if a game is receiving extremely low scores, it's pretty safe to write it off. There are some games I was very interested in playing through, but avoided because of the scores, and am glad as I was able to save both money and time on terrible games. Also, I'd like to think that ratings are driving producers to push out better games, though I know this is not always the case. I can agree that no one opinion is correct for everyone, or that a number can completely sum up a game, but it can give a good indication on where the audience lies and whether it will be worth your time.

I don't like game scores; I don't like the idea of summing up a game with a single score. I always have trouble with whether I should be more subjective, or more objective. If I do the latter it might help the "average" gamer more, but not represent my true feelings. If I do the former, that would probably mean nothing for most people, outside of gamers whose tastes and preferences happened to be just like mine, and where would they now that, even if that were the case.

I spent some time fiddling with scores, to accurately describe a game's quality, and it is not easy. What if a game has bad graphics, 50%, and really good music, 90%, how do you condense that into a single number? You can average them out, sure, but what would that even mean, those numbers might mean something separately, but together? And those numbers tend to be rather arbitrary, I mean, what does a 50% to graphics even mean?

Besides, 90% of games have a score between 70-90%, so at this point, that is pretty meaningless. Anyway, what is the actual difference between a 70% game, and an 80% one? Other than people, in general, have a slightly higher opinion of the latter? Better yet, what if that 70% game was rated by 10 000 gamer, and the 80% one by 500? Would that even be a representative data? Even better, what if 70% game is a standard action game with a wide audience, but the 80% one is something much more specific, for example, an old-school isometric cRPG, where the only ones who played it were the ones who deliberately seek them out, biased for them, thus would enjoy them more anyway? Even if you read between the lines like that, those number can mean very little. Even if you have a large enough data, and a sufficiently diverse reviewer base, what do you get? That the "average" consumer (whatever that means, I mean, can you even define what an average gamer is like?), in general (yet again, whatever that means), happen to feel this way about the game. And I don't think that is very helpful.

That's not even mentioning phenomenons like a review bombing (which Steam had to deal with), where an angry mob of players gets upset with a recent change and start writing negative reviews, thus pushing down the average. That really wouldn't be helpful for new players trying to decide whether the game is actually good.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of game scores and aggregated numbers. It's not the score that matters, but the reason why the reviewer gave the game that. Only written reviews with scores are meaningful in any way, either from journalist, or users, and even there, it's not the score, but the justification behind it that is important. That is the only information, that's really worth getting out of it.

As someone who only gives score (because I'm too lazy to write), I'm gonna agree about not picking a game based on scores, because I personally score a games based on my enjoyment and preferences, so I can be biased and not look at those with a critical perspective. With that said, I'm not afraid to give a low score to a beloved game if my experience with it is bad.

An example is the Classic Mega Man series, I'll always give 100 points to Mega Man 4, 5 and 6, because I enjoy they much more than Mega Man 2 and 3, which I give a lower score (and those two are the favorites and often considerd the best ones from the NES series by many people).